"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Fact checking modern opinions and assertions regarding
Second Amendment history and development by direct comparison with Founding Era facts - the original understanding of its purpose, meaning, and intent.

Followers

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Before a Standing Army can Rule, the People must be Disarmed
Updated January 25, 2013[Noah
Webster, of later dictionary fame, was a strong Federalist who wrote
an early pamphlet, An Examination Into The Leading Principles of the
Federal Constitution (October 10, 1787), under the pseudonym A Citizen of America. This was published only three weeks after the Constitution was made public. Webster's purpose
was to defend the proposed Constitution and argue for its
ratification without amendment. His view on an armed
populace is not based on any stated protection for such a concept in the Constitution. There was no constitutional assurance for the armed population that Webster so
clearly described as the source of power and the check on possible
government tyranny. This specific problem, the Constitution's failure to assure the people's control over the government they were being asked to ratify, was emphasized in period Antifederalist arms mantras, which will be presented in future posts of this series.]

"But what
is tyranny? Or how can a free people be deprived of their liberties?
Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not
warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can
never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own
hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state. . . .

Another
source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be
efficient, must be superior to any other force that exists among the
people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be
annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a
standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in
almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in American cannot
enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the
people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of
regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United
States. A military force, at the command of congress, can execute no
laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional;
for they will possess the power,
and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination,
to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and
oppressive." [The Origin of the Second Amendment, p.40]

[The
Origin of the Second Amendment is the documentary source for the
Second Amendment HistoryOnline series. This document collection
was cited over 100 times in the U.S. v Emerson decision, cited in the
Parker v District of Columbia decision, as well as several times in
Justice Scalia's Heller decision. The reason for the extensive
citations relative to Second Amendment intent in those decisions was
because Origin reprints nearly 800 pages of documents (newspaper
articles, letters, broadsides, notes, convention debates, speeches,
etc.) from the Ratification Era relating to the need for the Federal
Bill of Rights, the necessity of an armed populace, and militia
related discussion, all emphasizing the limited nature of the Federal
Government's intended powers.]

Please,
if you find the above information helpful, make sure to pass it along so others will know of its existence.